Your Right to Know

Gov. John Kasich’s top education advisors told lawmakers today they did not try to determine the
adequate cost of educating a child, but developed a school-funding system that “recognizes the need
for equal opportunity to resources.”

“We are not attempting to define, or even propose that we can know, as a state, the correct
spending amount that ensures every student in every district will receive just the right amount of
teaching and learning for success…” said Barbara Mattei-Smith, the governor's assistant education
policy adviser.

“There are districts in our state who spend large sums of money educating students and do a
wonderful job, but there are also other districts that also do well spending much less.”

The Ohio Constitution requires the state to provide a “thorough and efficient” education in
public schools.

After rolling out his school-funding plan to positive comments and sighs of relief from
superintendents, Kasich’s plan has since taken on heavy criticism from a number of school leaders
around the state after district funding breakdowns were released.

Under the plan, part of his two-year $63.3 billion budget, a number of high-wealth districts
would see significant funding increases over the next two years, while most poor districts,
particularly across Appalachia, would see no new basic operating state money.

Kasich’s advisers say that schools have essentially been without a funding formula for four
years, so this new formula is making up for changes in student populations and property value
changes during that time – a reason why some districts get more and others do not. They argue that
farmland has grown in value, while suburban and urban housing values have dropped.

“This budget represents the governor’s commitment to a new approach of funding students, not
schools,” Ross said.

Rep. Matt Lundy, D-Elyria, expressed concern that the governor’s plan does not attempt to
address the adequacy issue.

“You can’t define the investment that’s needed to provide an adequate education for our
students? Are we waving the white flag?” he asked.

“We don’t think there’s a pseudo-scientific number that does that,” Ross replied.

Mattei-Smith said attempts to create the right per-pupil funding level have been debated for
years.

“We’ve attempted over and over to define that. They have been challenged as too much or too
little. What you expect for your child varies across the state.”

Lundy added: “It sounds like we are throwing dollars up in the air and hoping it produces a
result.”

Mattei-Smith described how the formula was put together, with core funding that equals $5,000
per pupil minus 20 mills of required local contribution. The formula also includes secondary
poverty-based funding, and additional funds for students with disabilities, non-English speakers,
gifted students, preschool access and funds for districts with high concentrations of poverty.

The formula also contains more than $400 million per year of “guarantee” money – funds above
what the formula says a district should receive to ensure the school does not see a decline in
state revenue.

Mattei-Smith stressed that next year, Ohio’s lowest-wealth districts would get 400 percent
more per pupil than the highest-wealth districts. Also, she said, urban districts would get 383
percent more per pupil than high-wealth schools.

As an example, she said Trimble Local in Athens County would get $7,678 per pupil from the
state in 2014, more than the combined amount of the state’s 28 highest-wealth districts.

But those figures should not surprise anyone, said Rep. Debbie Phillips, D-Athens. “Every
formula the state has used drives money to poor schools.”

But when the governor says, “If you are poor, you're going to get more. If you are rich,
you're going to get less,” Phillips said school leaders expect to see more compared to what they
get now, not compared to wealthy districts.

“How does this formula compare to the other attempts?” she said, suggesting the high amount
of guarantee money indicates a flaw in the formula. “We’ve had a number of different attempts at
driving dollars where they’re needed.”

Mattei-Smith said all funding plans have included guarantee money in recent years, and it’s
difficult to compare this formula to others in the past. “Does the flaw exist in this formula or is
the flaw that in the last 10 years we have not adjusted payments to schools to reflect what is
happening?”

Phillips said that regardless of what the Kasich administration is calling the components of
the formula, it essentially sets a $5,000 per pupil foundation amount with a 20-mill “charge off”
of what local districts are expected to provide. The base amount, she said, is reduced from recent
formulas, and the charge-off level was reduced from the 22 or 23 mills in past formulas.

Reducing the charge-off, Phillips said, benefits wealthier districts with higher property
values, which is a key reason why so many suburban districts are getting more money while poor,
rural districts are not.

Mattei-Smith said when the focus is on poor and low-wealth districts, “we forget the
children.”

“We can’t do that,” she said. “If we start thinking we should drive more money to this
district because it’s poor, you are making a value judgment of which children deserve support and
which do not based not on them, but on where they live.”

Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Gallipolis, highlighted the difficulties his Appalachian districts are not
seeing higher wealth and are struggling to maintain staffing levels and provide students with a
basic education level. He noted some of the benefits offered to students in wealthy districts.

“I’m not asking for synchronized swimming, a swimming pool or violin or cello lessons. I want
music and art,” he said. “I’m trying to figure out, and I know you are too, that we have to get to
a level where everyone has a basic educational opportunity.”

Smith said the continued staff layoffs, teacher reductions and pay freezes cannot continue.

“If there’s a secret sauce we can share with my superintendents who are banging their heads
against the wall to provide a basic education, that’s what I’m trying to figure out,” he said.

Mattei-Smith said that, when including lost federal stimulus money and lost reimbursements
for local business and utility taxes, the governor’s 2015 education funding level exceeds 2011 by
$47.7 million.

Ross called Kasich’s proposed $300 million Straight-A Fund the “single most important element
for change in this formula.”

Under the plan, districts would request start-up funds for sustainable, innovative ideas to
improve education and save money.

“Our schools and districts find it hard to muster the political and financial capital to make
change happen,” Ross said. “This fund will be used to transition and implement the very best
improvement ideas whether it’s improving student achievement or reducing back office bureaucracy,
we want to allow our leaders to be both effective and efficient.

Rep. John Patrick Carney, D-Columbus, said he appreciated the desire to spark innovation, but
he said that based on statements by Kasich, he is concerned the thrust of the fund is more about
saving money than making educational improvements. He noted the example cited by the administration
that one teacher could teach multiple classes at one time.

“I want to make sure if we are spending money on something that is determined to be an
effective educational tool” and not just something that saves money, Carney said.

Mattei-Smith said there are ways to do online classrooms that “truly lead to improved
educational performance.” She said the state will want to see some research to support the programs
schools will propose, but because these are ideas that may not have been thought of before, the
state will not look for years of supporting data.